OSS

Let's clear up your retarded misconceptions about Open Source Software.

OSS does not mean "free" as in beer or freedom. It means "free" as in, "free" is a meaningless marketing term.

OSS is not an alternative to copyright. Copyright grantees the existence of OSS as it provides the rights for the author to control copies of their work with an OSS license. This would not be possible without copyright.

There is only one true OSS license that permits freedom and that is the MIT License. It is only 3 short paragraphs. It is one of the lease popular OSS licenses.

The most popular OSS license is the GNU General Public License. It is 12 pages describing the many restrictions you must follow. It does not guarantee you rights to any trademarks or patented code (OSS has a fuck ton of patented code put their on purpose).

The GPL and most OSS licenses are viral. If you wish to use GPL code in your application, even unmodified, you must distribute your code under the GPL.

OSS is not a morally superior concept. The intent of OSS is to lower the barrier of entry for software to achieve the widest possible adoption of that software. The goal is to make that software the de facto standard, giving the author complete control over an area of software. You will note that no OSS software places any restrictions on the author. Once version 1.0 of software X is adopted by a significant market share, the author is free to switch the software license to something not open leaving the users of software X very few reasonable alternative options to keep X up to date.

This thread again? Sigh, it's not like this troll gets more convincing over time

hello im fairX the haxxor join my community of hackers if you payme enough i will give you access to a private area of haxx ;)

>>3
Hello Mr. fairX sir, I tried mailing you but my mail program always tells me that mailto:sage is not a valid email address. What should I do to contact you? Please respond ASAP.

>>4
ASAP MY ANUS

>>5
You are the worst poster on the text boards, arguably worse than FV.

Let's clear up your retarded misconceptions about Closed Source Software.

CSS does not mean "free" as in beer or freedom. It means "free" as in, "free" is a meaningless marketing term.

CSS is not an alternative to copyright. Copyright grantees the existence of CSS as it provides the rights for the author to control copies of their work with an CSS license. This would not be possible without copyright.

There is only one true CSS license that permits freedom and that is the MIT License. It is only 3 short paragraphs. It is one of the mos popular CSS licenses.

The least popular CSS license is the GNU General Public License. It is 12 pages describing the many restrictions you must follow. It does not guarantee you rights to any trademarks or patented code (CSS has a fuck ton of patented code put their on purpose).

The GPL and most CSS licenses are viral. If you wish to use GPL code in your application, even unmodified, you must distribute your code under the GPL.

CSS is not a morally superior concept. The intent of CSS is to lower the barrier of entry for software to achieve the widest possible adoption of that software. The goal is to make that software the de facto standard, giving the author complete control over an area of software. You will note that no CSS software places any restrictions on the author. Once version 1.0 of software X is adopted by a significant market share, the author is free to switch the software license to something not open leaving the users of software X very few reasonable alternative options to keep X up to date.

>>6
ARGUABLY WORSE THAN MY ANUS